AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I am just posting it without comment - esp. without access to the actual report.
AoD
AoD
|
|
|
- Thread starter middeljohn
- Start date
Avenue
Active Member
I know, I'm responding to the article only.
kEiThZ
Superstar
We also need to provide livable space. I've yet to see a Toronto condo that was designed for families from the ground up. They all look like they are designed for singles or DINKs. Hence, all the amenities with units that are glorified shoeboxes. They could stimulate a ton of demand for the house to condo transition if they had 1500-2000 sq ft units in low rise buildings with few amenities. In my view, you need at least 500 sqft per adult and 250 sqft per child to make families truly feel comfortable in a condo. Anything less and they'll be yearning for a house.
Other than condos, the lack of decent townhomes is also evident. Nice executive townhomes for the upper middle class are so rare in Toronto. Add to that land efficient detached housing. It's not like there isn't detached housing in Europe. They just have large front lawns, double car garages, double driveways and large backyards. You'll find 1000-1500 sq ft homes, with a flower bed in front, a large patio in the back and a dedicated parking spot in the front or a garage right by the curb to pull into. This form of detached construction alone could probably add 10-20% more houses to each neighbourhood.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
This - I am not sure if the trend has reversed, but note this quote:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real...ome-ownership-might-be-doomed/article4179012/
Similar observations regarding unit size from a more recent report:
http://business.financialpost.com/p...ay-downsize-to-deal-with-affordability-report
We don't use space efficiently, period. If you want that kind of space, Northern Ontario is for you - but that level of expectation is perhaps no longer reasonable for a metropolitan area in our major cities.
AoD
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
If you can't afford the multiple offspring, then may I suggest perhaps not having them, rather than expect society to subsidize your breeding habits. The world is overpopulated already, if you hadn't noticed.
lead82
Senior Member
Terrible article. Very one sided and felt like it was paid for by the building industry. Yes it's policy that there are less single detached homes. The question is why are condos also pricey? There is lots of room to build. The culture of owning a single detached house in a major building than centre has to stop. We are a large city. We need more flats. The current crop of condos is meant for investors and not families for long term living. If Toronto developers stopped complaining and built more 2/3/4 bedroom units in buildings and avoided buildings that are mostlu bachelor and 1 bedrooms with a few 2 bedrooms per floor and a handful of 3 bedrooms in the building. Build smaller more intimate low/midrise duplex/triplex/quadplex buildings that are aimed at families with kids. This is where the demand is that's not being satisfied.
The issue in GTA is there is no option between a 2br condo and a house. There are not many town homes and even less semi-detached or multiplex homes. Even the mid-rise condos being built are mostly 1 bedroom units.
The issue in GTA is there is no option between a 2br condo and a house. There are not many town homes and even less semi-detached or multiplex homes. Even the mid-rise condos being built are mostly 1 bedroom units.
lead82
Senior Member
No one is asking for subsidies. We are asking for choice in homes. We are supporting sprawl with endless roads and traffic nightmare in the GTA.
The province wants to encourage density, that's great. Provide incentives for builders to build more dense forms of family housing and disincentives to build speculative tiny units. Jennifer Keesmat calls it the missing middle. There is a huge latent demand for this but the current crop we have being built is on the top scale of the pricing spectrum. Not everyone needs super upgrades and state of the art technologies. We need some basic housing. It's sad that this used to be normal to build such forms many decades ago. Now developers lie and say it's not affordable to build large family units.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
I hate circular logic.
You want the bigger home because you have created multiple dependants that require it. But you can't afford the bigger home, even after all the tax breaks and freebies society provides to those with dependants.
Toronto developers build tons of small condos because they are cheap. Comparatively speaking, Toronto is pretty cheap when it comes to downtown living. Supply and demand doesn't care about size...if this latent demand is there for large family condos as you claim...they would build them. That's why they generally change the building configuration to more smaller units after initial sales offices open. Forget what Jennifer Keesmat says....she's in over her head.
The solution for families who can't afford to purchase real estate large enough for their needs used to be to simply rent. But 25 years of rent control has screwed that option quite nicely.
Avenue
Active Member
Between all this anti-reproductive rage you're seriously missing how the economies are dependent on upcoming younger generations to facilitate them. The other parts of your post such as the "rent control = no rentals getting built" equation is basically antiquated Thatcherism.
narduch
Senior Member
There's been no rent control on any building after 1991 and there still aren't many rental buildings.
As for 'subsidizing' families I'm going to guess freshcutgrass is also against Maternity Leave. Because if you can't afford a child why should the government provide you with EI for 12 months? Amirite?
As for 'subsidizing' families I'm going to guess freshcutgrass is also against Maternity Leave. Because if you can't afford a child why should the government provide you with EI for 12 months? Amirite?
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
I'm not missing that...I'm just saying we should be more responsible in our reproductive habits. Just because you want something, doesn't mean you should have it if you can't afford to maintain it. The world is no danger of running short of humans....just smart ones.
First of all, I'm as anti-Reaganism/Thatcherism as you can get. Thatcherism may have not liked rent controls, but for completely different reasons than I do. You also didn't provide any evidence that I was wrong...just a fallacious argument.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
And that's an argument to not only keep that policy in place, but to expand it to include all rental units? Anyway, there are other reasons why there is record numbers of housing being sold and built, and very little of it in the form of purpose-built commercial rental buildings. It has to do with the advantages in the type of ownership (read condos) as legislated by both the City and Provincial governments. Removing rent controls isn't enough incentive...obviously.
Tacking on rent controls is about as stupid as it gets. But this is a political football....doing what is as equitable for the overall well-being of the rental industry is not the end game here.
Well, as a proponent of human extinction, that is a safe assumption.
Look, as a non breeding male, I understand I am in a tiny minority, and I accept the fact that the majority of society is going to hammer me into subsidizing their lifestyle...because they can. I'm all for social assistance, but I think we should just be a little less narcissistic about it when making our lifestyle choices. Isn't that what socialism is all about?
lead82
Senior Member
Talk about circular logic. Your solution is for families to rent. Great. Where shall we rent when there are almost no 3br units on the market? Our only choice is to live in small condo units or move to far suburbs and commute. Or if one is lucky you can find a great walk up in a stable neighbourhood. That is a rare gem indeed.
Supply and demand market is tightly controlled and regulated by governments. Developers don't give a crap. Most built cheap and fast. The city and suburban regulations are why we don't have large units. Minimum parking requirements and forced amenity spaces that are barely used. This is why developers build condos with fancy and expensive amenities that are barely used most of the time - to meet dumb city regulations, driving up capital and maintenance costs.
This is what I mean by lack of choice. You either have to buy or rent a fancy but small condo with 24/7 security a pool, etc or a live in a house in Newmarket/Barrie/Burlington/Oshawa.
The main reason developers don't built them is because it's cheaper and more profitable to build high rise or low rise. This is fully controlled by regulation. The city and province can change the rules but don't as they are paid for by developers and they need to perpetuate the Canadian cultural dream of a big house and a big yard. That's the only place we are supposed to raise kids. There are not supposed to be kids in the dirty city so why bother to build family apartments in the city.
Canada generally has two extremes: high rise or mid-rise: both are costly and inefficient. The most efficient city form is mid-rise. This is why European cities are much more efficient. Their built form is made for people not cars. There are few high rise buildings and almost no single detached homes. They are walkable and easy to serve by transit or cycling infrastructure. They have a much better place making. The exact opposite of what we have here.
Jennifer Keesmat is a breath of fresh air in this city. She is not over her head at all. She is doing quite well . Especially given the shit show that is City Hall with the old dinosaur councillors that squash good ideas and force stupid ones down the civil service. The missing middle development options is really what the city needs. It's more gentle density, its cheaper to construct but needs applications to be processed faster so the project get approved. Reason it takes so long is they are under staffed for a booming city with so many development applications. Again, this is controlled by city spending priority. No such thing as a free market.
Here is are some ideas: What if the city charged a property tax based on the cost to service the property? What if suburbs didn't subsidize low density and charged the full capital and operational costs to build roads/schools/highways/transit/police/parks, etc? What if the city actually funded the planning department by doubling its size and giving it clout to make decisions on changes and requirements to zoning, transportation, transit and outer city infrastructure .
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
That's nonsense.
City Hall has no control over supply and demand at all, let alone "tight" control. And developers do give a crap. They charge by the square foot, and if more people wanted larger sqft units, they would simply build them. If anything, the city is pushing developers for larger units...not discouraging them as you have insinuated. As SFD get more expensive, we will be seeing the multi-res family units getting built.
And the minimum provision of residential amenity space is like 2sqm per unit, so the "fancy" amenities are neither a "requirement", nor "barely used". Bring some backup to your argument next time.
I could just say Keesmaat is a product of that "sh*t show (Ford administration), and leave it at that. But being outspoken against dink Scarberian subways and rebuilding an elevated Gardiner only qualifies you as having a bit of common sense...doesn't make you a genius planner. Keesmaat is ambitious....she's after more than just the planner's job.
lead82
Senior Member
The city decides zoning and where things can be built and where they can't. That is tue ultimate control. They also impose heigh, envelope, setbacks, shadow and many other regulations. So they do have tight controls. The city and the province control the building code and what gets built. They make it profitable to build small units rather than large. That's partly why developers build so many smaller units. Tue development charges affect charges too. If city wanted to truly encourage more family units why not reduce development charges for buildings with larger 2/3 bedroom units? They can provide incentives and disincentives. Asking developers to built it won't work because they know the pricing structure as a result of fees and charges won't be profitable for them.
I've lived in many condos and been on the board of directors. Amenities such as gyms are used but things like swimming pools are dormant most of the time and break down the rest. Concierge service is nice but expensive and unnecessary. Party rooms are mostly empty. Fancy lobbies that are expensive to maintain. The minimum amenity provisions are use those provisions for marketing. So it helps them more than it does the city.
I fully agree with you re: Keesmat. She is ambitious. I don't know if she will ever get into politics or stick to being a civil servant. She is outspoken but also believes in urbanism and it's benefits. Walking communities, amenities close by, mid-rise and denser low-rise is what we should be encouraging to build. This is exactly what she is advocating for. It is happening but slower then expected. City bureaucracy and politicians are a tough nut to crack.
I've lived in many condos and been on the board of directors. Amenities such as gyms are used but things like swimming pools are dormant most of the time and break down the rest. Concierge service is nice but expensive and unnecessary. Party rooms are mostly empty. Fancy lobbies that are expensive to maintain. The minimum amenity provisions are use those provisions for marketing. So it helps them more than it does the city.
I fully agree with you re: Keesmat. She is ambitious. I don't know if she will ever get into politics or stick to being a civil servant. She is outspoken but also believes in urbanism and it's benefits. Walking communities, amenities close by, mid-rise and denser low-rise is what we should be encouraging to build. This is exactly what she is advocating for. It is happening but slower then expected. City bureaucracy and politicians are a tough nut to crack.